Overview
Title
Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to Waste Emissions Charge for Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems: Procedures for Facilitating Compliance, Including Netting and Exemptions.
ELI5 AI
S. J. RES. 12 is about rules that the EPA made to handle pollution from oil and gas. Some people in Congress want to say, "No thanks!" to those rules, so they wouldn't count anymore.
Summary AI
S. J. RES. 12 is a joint resolution that seeks to overturn a rule issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The rule in question addresses a "Waste Emissions Charge" for petroleum and natural gas systems, outlining procedures for compliance, including aspects such as netting and exemptions. Introduced by Senator Hoeven and co-sponsored by several others, the resolution declares that Congress disapproves of this EPA rule, and if passed, the rule would not be legally enforceable.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary
The legislative proposal in question, S. J. RES. 12, seeks to formally register Congress's disapproval of a specific rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This rule relates to imposing waste emissions charges on petroleum and natural gas systems. The objective of the rule was to facilitate compliance through various mechanisms, including netting and exemptions. The bill effectively nullifies this rule, stating that it shall hold no legal force or effect.
Significant Issues
Several issues emerge from this legislative effort. Firstly, the bill opts not to provide a detailed explanation or rationale behind Congress's decision to disapprove the rule, which leads to a degree of ambiguity about the motivations and reasoning behind this choice. This absence of clarity can cause political and legal concerns, particularly in relation to government transparency and accountability.
Additionally, the bill's text fails to explain the rule's intended implications or consequences. This lack of context makes it challenging to assess the environmental or economic impacts the rule might have had. Moreover, using a technical citation without clear explanation, such as "Fed. Reg. 91094," could make the legislative process appear complex and inaccessible to those unfamiliar with legal jargon.
Lastly, the bill does not propose any alternate regulatory measures to replace the disapproved rule. This omission may lead to uncertainty in regulatory compliance among affected industries, potentially causing financial and operational challenges and leaving a gap in environmental regulation.
Impact on the Public
From a broader perspective, this legislative action could affect the general public in various ways. On the one hand, if the EPA rule were to increase operational costs for petroleum and natural gas industries, these costs might eventually trickle down to consumers in the form of higher prices for related products and services. Additionally, the absence of strict emissions controls may raise environmental concerns, potentially affecting public health and ecological well-being.
On the other hand, removing the rule might temporarily relieve these industries of additional regulatory burdens, potentially ensuring stable pricing and fostering economic activities by reducing compliance costs.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Specific stakeholders such as petroleum and natural gas companies are particularly impacted by this legislative decision. The disapproval of the rule could be seen as a positive outcome for these industries, as it alleviates immediate regulatory constraints, allowing them greater operational flexibility and possibly lowering their expenses in the near term.
Conversely, environmental advocacy groups and communities concerned about pollution and climate change might view this bill's passage negatively. The removal of emissions charges may be perceived as a setback in efforts to curb pollution and enforce more rigorous environmental standards.
In conclusion, while this bill aims to nullify a particular regulatory measure, its lack of detailed reasoning, uninterrupted regulatory framework, and potential implications highlight several areas of concern for lawmakers and the public alike.
Issues
The disapproval of the rule by Congress is made without offering a detailed rationale, leading to ambiguity about the motivations behind this decision. This could raise political and legal concerns among stakeholders regarding transparency and accountability. (Section Issues 1)
The refusal to explain the implications of the rule within the text makes it difficult to evaluate its potential impact on the environment and stakeholders. This lack of clarity could pose an ethical issue in terms of informed decision-making. (Section Issues 2)
The reference to 'Fed. Reg. 91094' is a complex citation that may not be easily understood by individuals unfamiliar with federal register citations. This could be seen as a legal issue, as it makes the legislative process less accessible to the general public. (Section Issues 3)
The absence of alternative measures or plans following the disapproval of the rule could lead to uncertainty in regulatory compliance, impacting industries financially and operationally. It leaves a gap in environmental regulation that might have significant repercussions. (Section Issues 4)
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
Congress disapproves of the Environmental Protection Agency's rule about waste emissions charges for petroleum and natural gas systems, and they say that this rule should not be enforced.